Results 721 - 740 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
721 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214116 | ||
Val, I'll certainly try to visit that link soon, probably won't be today with all the church things. However, I have heard the arguement before about the first ressurection being in phases, and right now all I can say is it seems completely ad hoc. Meaning that there is no reason anybody would believe this from scripture except for the fact that the pre trib view is sunk without it. Therefore if you want to believe pretrib you must buy into this idea also. But perhaps this link will provide a better arguement for it than I've heard in the past. I'll look at it and let you know. As I've always said, if the pre-trib stance could provide a good arguement I'd certainly like to believe them! Who would want to believe we'd be here for that? But I will go look at it with as much of an open mind as possible as soon as I have oportunity. In Love, Beja |
||||||
722 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214114 | ||
crk, There might be more to think about than just rev 3:9-10. In fact, I find pretrib rapture very hard to argue in light of a couple passages. 1 Thess 4:13-18 make it plainly clear that the dead in Christ will rise(the ressurection) before the rapture. Second when we turn to Revelations 20:4,5 we see that in the FIRST ressurection are those who died for refusing to take the mark of the beast. Now, I feel confident that you yourself believe the mark of the beast happens during the tribulation. So lets put this together, the rapture will not happen until after the first ressurection. The first ressurection will not happen until after the mark of the beast, and the mark of the beast will not happen until during the tribulation. As for Revelations 3:9-10, I'd like to suggest to you that a ratpure is not God's only way of keeping people from evil. Check out Isaiah 57:1 as an example. You just might be misunderstanding God's intentions. In Love, Beja |
||||||
723 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 214065 | ||
Bill, First of many points and perhaps most importantly, you responded to nothing I said previously. I mean this in the sense that you apparently had no ability to show those scriptures either invalid, or misrepresented by myself. If you and I are actually going to arrive anywhere in a discussion, those points must be dealt with. Because a trust in scripture is the only starting point we could possibly have. Now, you did respond to what I said in another sense, in that you suggested to me that the implications of what I am saying would not be something I hold to and therefore I myself must abandon the statement because of that. That appears to me to be your logic in your last post. Your critiques however show that you do not understand any of what a person with my views actually believes. I'd like to state a few that would help with some of your specific objections. I'm not going to spend the time scripture hunting for all these, I have no illusions of convincing you of anything at this point, I merely want to give you a hint of what scripture teaches in these things. First, the Old Testament Law consists of two parts, the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral law consists of right and wrong, the cermonial law were simply temporary ordinances which were meant to depict what was coming in Christ. When Christ came, he did away with the ceremonial law because all these were pointing to something coming in Him. (I say these things not from picking and choosing but because this is what scripture says about itself) So things like eating regulations, sowing a field with two seeds, mixed cloths in clothing, sacrificial system, all this was done away with. The laws concerning right and wrong and morality however remain in a sense. The reason being, that even though Christ has destroyed the law's ability to condemn those who have faith in Christ, the moral law is still a picture of perfect righteousness, and hence how are we to dicard something such as that? Another major problem is you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of one time commands. You remarked that we would need to kill our enemies such as Moses or Joshua. Surely anybody of any intelligence at all can see that in such passages God is commanding the death of certain particular sinners by the hands of His people rather than commanding some holy jihad against our enemies! Lets not throw out such silly statements as we discuss these things, for you know that there is no compulsion to see scripture in that way. In short, the fact that scripture is all or none does not mean to rob scripture of its own sense of progressive revelation that it teaches! The scripture shows us how to interpret such things, so believeing all of scripture to be inerrant forces none of the silly things that you are accusing us of. Also, with regards to Jesus' gospel we certainly should not take his Isaiah teaching as a comprehensive explination of His gospel! Jesus Himself never even said as much, he simply said that today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. You seem to be completely unaware of all the many statements Jesus said concerning those who believe in him have life and those who do not don't. He fleshes out His Gospel in many places in his own teachings, friend. There is so many things you are saying to correct that I can not hope to correct them all, and even if I could you would not hear because you begin with the most fundamental error of all. That God's word is not trustworthy. Oh, and yes, I do believe 5 point calvinism, and I think you'll find it in the gospel of John if you want to hear it from Jesus. A good deal of it can be found in John chapter 6. In Love, Beja |
||||||
724 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 214060 | ||
Bill, 1 Peter 1:20-21 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." We see that the Bible does claim to be inspired by God and therefore not by man's authority. It is not Jesus versus Peter, it is Jesus along with the other word's of God. 2 Peter 3: 15-16 "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." And here we see Peter claim that Paul's writing are also to be considered scripture. As well the key comment about the wisdom that was "given him." Paul's teaching was given him by God, which he defends very aggresively in Galatians. Scripture clearly teaches its own authority and inspiration by God. But lets take a look at something Christ Himself said since that is your focus. Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." We can see clearly that Jesus Himself rebukes anybody who would teach that the Law is invalid. This would be Moses, whom you said a Christian shouldn't be teaching you to follow. Scripture is an all or none I'm afraid. Any part you wish to choose will rebuke you for the part you reject. Every part of it is inspired by God and therefore inerrent. Finally, I want to bring up what might be a touchy correction. And that is that I would gently and humbly ask you to beware pride. That may sound like a surprising thing for me to say but there is one thing that is absolutely essential to your view. And that thing is that in order to believe what you say, you must assume that essentially every Christian throughout history must be deluded and not intelligent enough to see what you deem obvious. I assure you many men of which we will be hard pressed to find their equal today has set their minds to these things. Yet you hold your mind to have trumped them all. Now I do not suggest that you have ever openly thought of it this way, but whether you have or not you must believe that in order to so freely correct all of Christian history. Beware pride, friend. 1 Cor 3:18 "Let no man deceive himself If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise" In Love, Beja |
||||||
725 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 213897 | ||
I'm sorry if what I posted made it sound like we don't know what state we are going to be in, that is not at all what I meant. It is my opinion that what John was talking about in the verse I posted was that we aren't sure all the ways our heavenly bodies (as it is called by paul) are going to be distinct from our earthly ones. I think that is all he was referring to, not that it is uncertain if we will have human bodies. If my post sounded that way then I certainly apologize. Like I said though, the high light for me is going to be that we finally are free from this cursed inclination towards sin, that we can finally stop being our own worst enemies as far as righteousness is concerned. The main point I was wanting to introduce is that there is no need to speculate as to every aspect of what is going to be different since it is clearly not known. Thank you for clarifying my post if it sounded as if it meant more. In Love, Beja |
||||||
726 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 213859 | ||
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. I think this verse might help you. Will we have bodies? Most certainly, but heavenly ones. What will that mean exactly? We don't yet know but we know it will be a body like Christ's glorified body. And we know it will be free from the constant urge to sin that we face now. Those two things are more than enough to satisfy me! Hope this helps some, if nothing else than to affirm our not knowing. In Love, Beja |
||||||
727 | The people that never heard of Jesus? | Rom 1:20 | Beja | 213837 | ||
Skasian, I encourage you to read my reply to Vintage also, but to answer your question...It is not failure to receive Jesus that sends us to hell, it is sin. Sin sends a person to hell. Sin is why we rightly deserve to go to hell. Rejecting Jesus is simply refusing the solution to the problem that is already there. So, in applying this to your question, yes they would go to hell. Though not because they didn't get to hear about Jesus, but rather because they have in fact sinned. And as a sinner, they are rightly and justly condemned by God. The gospel is the life line being extended to those who are already perishing. In love, Beja |
||||||
728 | The people that never heard of Jesus? | Rom 1:20 | Beja | 213836 | ||
Vintage, You are sorely in error here. The entire idea in this section of romans is that this group of people are without excuse. The entire point is that the idea of some noble minded, good man out there who perished and just didn't get a fair shake is a myth that Paul is purposely doing away with in this passage. Pay close attention to verses 18-20. Also, consider chapter 3, verse 9. This is a key verse for interpreting everything that has come before because in it he states what in his mind is what has already been covered, "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin." The entirety of Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that nobody is excusable. Not through ignorance, not through presuming on God's mercy, not through hearing the law, not through doing the law, not from anything at all. We are all under God's righteous judgement. Understanding this, is key to understanding the amazing gospel that follows in 3:21 and on. There is no second arrangement! There is no other criteria of judgement! It is Christ or the inexcusable law. The fact the gentiles have it written on their hearts IS what makes them without excuse! Because deep down they knew what was right and they chose evil anyways. NOBODY will arrive at heaven and hear God say, "Gee, you never got a chance to hear my gospel, and you didn't get the law, but I see you always did right by your concience, come on in to heave because you are a good guy!" EVERYBODY has chosen wrong, sin and wickedness, and we will all be judged apart from Christ. I would give a much more thorough and organized defense of what I've stated, but its 2:15 am here right now and I just logged on because I couldn't sleep. I look forward to the more well laid statements of what I've just said that are sure to come! In Love, Beja |
||||||
729 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213748 | ||
CDBJ Your statement: "I don’t see faith as something that grows or the necessity for it." 1thessalonians 1:3 "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged.." 2 Corinthians 10:15 "not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men's labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be..." In Love, Beja |
||||||
730 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213725 | ||
After reading over my last post to you, I can see I was pretty horridly unclear, I usually am when trying to explain greek. I understand greek in my head but I do a poor job of explaining it, I'll try once more, not for any reason of trying to be right, or trying to win an arguement, but simply because reading over my last post it was painfully unclear. First, the list you posted is true: Verb: Participle Tense: Present Voice: Middle or passive deponent Case: Accusative Gender: Masculine Person: ---- Number: Singular That's all true. My point's were two. First: Middle/passive deponent This by definition means a word that has a middle/passive form, but an active function. Second: An accusative, while often does have the sense of being acted on, is often used as the subject of an infinitive phrase; and in such instances it looses that "acted upon" sense and instead is treated simply as a subject. Now, I may be completely missing your original arguement, but your arguement seemed to go something like this to me, if I'm wrong I'm sorry: Your arguement was based on the participle "He who comes" being middle and accusative and the particular emphasis of idea that gives it. What I am trying to say, is that it being deponent, and being used as the subject of the infinitive, does NOT change that it is middle and accusative, but it DOES change the function of those. Meaning they do not carry the typical emphasis' that they normally do. Now, I don't know if you know greek or not. I'm not sure if you are just using a greek tool, or you've actually had some classes in greek, but the above statements are true. If you do know greek I point you to "Greek Grammer beyond the basics" by wallace, I can look up page numbers for you tommorrow if you want me to. If you don't know greek I know of no way to prove these things to you and we'll just have to disagree. But I hope in the least that this clarifies what I was trying to say, and I"m not trying to argue against these being in the middle/passive deponent voice and in the accusative case. In Love, Beja |
||||||
731 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213712 | ||
Mmmmm, the best I can tell from your post you are saying it means just the second of the two options I presented, the one about it referring to salvation. However, I'm not really sure that's what you said. I'm afraid I couldn't follow it very well, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. As far as the greek word that word is what we call "deponent." Meaning that it is a word that does not have a present tense form and as a result the fact that it seems to be in the middle tense does not merit a middle tense interpretation but rather an active sense. So it should be treated as an active verb. So it is not interpreted as something that is caused, at least not by any grammatical reason. And I don't think that it is accusative due to it being acted upon, it is accusative because it is a subject of the infinitival imperative (must believe.) The kind Mr. Tim that frequents this forum can correct me if I'm mistaken as he seems to have a better handle on greek than I do. Finally, let me suggest that it is both of these two things that I put forward in my original question. I think it does apply to salvation and I think it does apply to continual instinces of pleasing God. The same faith that we are saved by is the same faith we are to continue to please God by living by. I did not intend this to be a trick question that I knew the answer to but since I posted it I found a sermon by spurgeon that suggested this answer that I was already begginning to expect. He drew both truths out of this verse. But, perhaps I'm wrong. I do thank you for your input. In Love, Beja |
||||||
732 | Study Bible | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213711 | ||
If I could be permited a bit of rambling due to the fact I find this conversation interesting. I spent a very great amount of time in my own Christian life avoiding commentaries. I did this for two reasons. First because I found that those around me used them too quickly and it left their minds dull. They did not first give their minds to the study of scripture and knowing it then latter consult commentaries to check if their thoughts were affirmed by other Christian witness, rather they just grabbed the nearest answer. I found this to be terrible. The second reason is because you can find a commentary that says anything and everything. How was I to know whether I was being taught heresy or truth? Commentaries are not inerrent rather the scriptures are. So it was not for any high opinion of my own understanding but from a fear at my inability to truely recognize foolishness that I shunned them. I believe I was very right to do so because I think my path would have surely led to poor thinking and falsehood if I had grabbed for the commentators who would have been handed to me at that time. So I am glad I avoided them. On the other hand, now that I know well enough what is in scripture that I can readily recognize truth and falsehood when I hear it, I find that I can actually identify those great souls of the past who have much to teach me! Now, I find past saints to be a source of knowledge and spiritual guidance I never could have from them before in my inability to trust them. But even to this day my firm commitment is to never take in more writtings of men than I take in scripture. For a vivid and constantly refreshed knowledge of scripture is what makes these commentators safe. It is by this that we can mine their amazing worth without taking in any false teaching. I will always observe this caution, but no more will I avoid such rich treasures. Anyways, take this for what little it is worth to you, I'm mostly typing because I enjoy the conversation. In Love, Beja |
||||||
733 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Not Specified | Beja | 213702 | ||
must believe that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Do you think that this refers to something after salvation in the sense that after we are saved we must continue to believe that he is worth further pursuit. A believe without which we will never seek Him thus living in a way that pleases Him. Or do you think this is drawing out the fact that for salvation you must not only have faith that He exists but you must also have faith that He will carry out His promised reward of "salvation." Both are true I believe, the question is which do you think the author of Hebrews is trying to convey. In Love, Beja |
||||||
734 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213709 | ||
must believe that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Do you think that this refers to something after salvation in the sense that after we are saved we must continue to believe that he is worth further pursuit. A believe without which we will never seek Him thus living in a way that pleases Him. Or do you think this is drawing out the fact that for salvation you must not only have faith that He exists but you must also have faith that He will carry out His promised reward of "salvation." Both are true I believe, the question is which do you think the author of Hebrews is trying to convey. In Love, Beja |
||||||
735 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213689 | ||
Kcabm14, I hardly know where to begin, though I'm certain where to end. First let me point out the root of your error in this specific instance. You first are reading into the scripture. Deuteronomy 22:5 says specifically this, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." Now, that is exactly what it says. Where in that do you see pants mentioned? Nowhere. Nor does it go on to clarify what those clothing articles might be. It leaves it completely blank. All we know with certainty is that a woman's clothing is off limits for a man, and a man's clothing is off limits for a woman. Nowhere does it identify any single article as specific to either a man or woman such as pants. So where shall we determine that from? It is specific to the culture to where the gospel travels. In this case the norm for society (within reason) determines what clothing is gender specific. You are bringing the presuposition that pants are male only. This presuposition is wrong even though it may have been true a century ago. Why does a Christian not have an obligation to cling to the standards of a century ago? Because it is purely incidental to morality. Nudity and lust are not incidental, but things such as pants, the color pink, are incidental. To go from this to the accusation that the church should let society establish its morality is absolutely rediculous and to suggest that I am making that suggestion from this arguement shows a shameful lack in reluctance to judge another man's servant. I'm not angry in the least at your suggesting this, my sterness in writing this is that I see in you this passage: "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Tim 1:3-7 I hold no animosity towards you, I have no anger or frustration towards you, but you really need to turn from such speculative, unedifying issues. In Love, Beja |
||||||
736 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213659 | ||
Do you really think that in our current culture pants is a "man only attire" in the same way a dress is "women only?" The reason it is alright for women to wear pants is that its no more a "man only" article of clothing than shoes are, at least in our current culture. Women in pants is not cross dressing. Perhaps where you live its different. In Love, Beja |
||||||
737 | How Holy Is Marriage? | Matt 16:6 | Beja | 213625 | ||
Kcabm14, This is not new, this is not something God started doing differently or some progression in judgement. This is how God always dealt. Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." The Exodus 20:5 statement of the iniquities of the fathers being visited on his decendents needs to be interpreted in light of this. However, your statements about applying this truth to his situation was very well done. In love, Beja |
||||||
738 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213568 | ||
Justme, I wish I could let myself leave it as just what you have said. I wish I could leave it, "this has been abused and therefore lets just not mess with it, and not bother defending it." However, it is with a regret that I suggest to you this position is a luxury. It is a luxury of which few of us, especially a pastor can indulge. Consider this, a church that is convinced that alcohol is wrong, and a new Christian who wants to join who drinks a glass of wine before bed. The church wants to exclude this person based on drinking. What then? I dearly wish it could simply be solved by saying, "lets all keep our opinions to ourselves and not judge." I do not say this mockingly or with sarcasim, I truely wish it! There are times we need to know the truth about this. In such a situation do we need to exclude the person or are we putting requirements on church membership which God Himself did not place? Dare we exclude one that God does not find fault with for our own traditions? So I say this, at points we must know the truth on this topic, and we must stand fast in it. But until that is forced upon us I agree with you. There is no need to pursue it to the point that we are known as the "pro-booze church." In love, Beja |
||||||
739 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213558 | ||
Lion, Not sure quite how to respond. I was never trying to make any statement in the discussion except to let azure know what was in the greek, since she(or he?) showed interest. If you look at the post I responded to she asked if the idea of not being pugnacious and not drinking could validly be combined into one phrase in the greek. The answer is no. But, if you do want to know my opinion then I think having a drink is not a sin. Second, the question of whether one should or not can certainly not be given a universal answer. For me, as a Baptist pastor, in my given congregation, the answer is certainly no I should not drink (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 9). Besides, the stuff is remarkably foul tasting so I wouldn't want to. God bless you and sorry for the confusion. In Love, Beja |
||||||
740 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213554 | ||
heh, in the greek, not "in the great". Little fuzzy today, monday's are recooperation days for pastors. Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |